Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Nature at work. Is this worse than Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill?

Isn't this equal to the Alaskan Oil Spill of some years back where do-gooders insisted that nature needed help and whole shorelines were blasted with steam to remove tar buildup and oil, only to discover the untreated areas recovered quicker and they'd actually done more damage trying to appease the "greenies"?

"Dear God, please accept this fine on the part of the earth community. signed United Nations"

A bit silly? Yeah, sure was.
=================================

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/japan.volcano.ap/index.html
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/japan.volcano.ap/story.plume4.ap.jpg

A mysterious column of water vapor that shot a kilometer (3,300 feet) into the sky from the Pacific Ocean near Iwo Jima was likely caused by an underwater volcanic eruption, and ships should avoid the area, Japanese officials have said.

Japanese troops stationed on Iwo Jima on Saturday reported seeing the massive, cloudy column rise from the sea about 50 kilometers (30 miles) southeast of the small island, said Maritime Self-Defense Forces spokesman Hiroshi Shirai...Iwo Jima is about 1,120 kilometers (700 miles) southeast of Tokyo...."It's highly likely that it's caused by an eruption of an underwater volcano," coast guard spokesman Shigeyuki Sato said of the strange occurrence....Coast Guard aircraft crews on Sunday returned with video images of the vapor plume and surrounding water, Sato said. The survey crew also found gray mud rising from the bottom. It was not immediately known if volcanic gases were being released... TV footage showed what looked like white smoke billowing into the sky from the brick-red water.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Nature at work. Is this worse than Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Nature at work. Is this worse than Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Try as I might...

.... I cannot see any possible reason to compare the Valdez spill to this natural occurence.

Except just to get in a dig at the "greenies".

The Alaskan lobster and other fishing industries suffered a huge financial blow from the oil spill.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Spelling it out.

In reply to: Try as I might...

The comparison is obvious, which you also noted, they both involve "damage" to the immediate environment in which they are found, and they both involve damage to areas that are fisheries. I'm thinking the damage by the undewater volcano is killing off more marine life at the time than the oil spill did. What they don't have in common is the Exxon spill was closer to land and also involved land animals and bird life. In the main however both are ecological "disasters" that nature will and would have corrected within time.

Collapse -
The Point is the Valdez was avoidable, and nature isn't.

In reply to: Spelling it out.

It has always been said that nature is a balance of forces, of creation and destruction. This post is about as sensible as saying the extinction event 65 million years ago was worse than the Exxon Valdez. Of course it was, and so was Krakatoa, and Mt St Helens and any number of naturally caused forest fires. But they're unavoidable. Mankind screwing up throws another log or two on that balance and inclines it the wrong way. And so many things that mankind does are tough on the environment.

I remember a little noticed article from the early 1970's that said if one ship loaded with Agent Orange had sunk in the Pacific in transit, and if the contents had been released it would have killed enough phyto plankton to seriously reduce world-wide oxygen levels and probably cause the extinction of many species including us. Fortunately it didn't happen.

Rob

Collapse -
Oil spills ...

In reply to: The Point is the Valdez was avoidable, and nature isn't.

... really *ARE* a drop in the bucket.

Oil in the Oceans

Since ALL of us Americans rely on the transport of oil through the region, it is the heighth of hypocrisy to blame the company that provides the oil for such tragedies associated with this necessity. Given as ocean populations seem to have survived and adapted *forever* despite the severalfold and continual seepage of oil occurring naturally, it really is difficult to see the reaction to the Valdeze incident as anything but a dramatic overreaction.

Accidents will happen. Even if the captain hadn't been drinking on that particular day.

Collapse -
Responsibility is not a

In reply to: Oil spills ...

factor, Evie? Why do huge corporations get a pass on the responsibility thing? The companies that transport the oil and crash the tankers must be held responsible for their actions, Evie. Facing your responsibilities is not just for pregnant girls.

Dan Happy

Collapse -
Fine

In reply to: Responsibility is not a

Let them take out insurance against such accidents. Don't whine when your oil prices go up.

Collapse -
It should also be noted....

In reply to: The Point is the Valdez was avoidable, and nature isn't.

...that while volcanoes do short-term damage, the long-term effect of volcanic eruptions is usually beneficial to the environment.

The analogy is indeed ridiculous unless the volcano got drunk and started belching oil, and the volcano's employer spent years trying to shirk responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

Collapse -
It has been alleged that recovery has been complete, and

In reply to: It should also be noted....

was better where efforts were not made to clean up. Please link to articles and photos that show that this is not the case. How do you know the effect has not been beneficial?

Collapse -
I'm just going to take a wild guess....

In reply to: It has been alleged that recovery has been complete, and

....that zillions of gallons of oil on the water, on the shore, and on the local wildlife is not good for the environment.

Collapse -
Please post a photo of YOUR horse and carriage. If you are

In reply to: I'm just going to take a wild guess....

using oil, YOU are guilty of despoiling the environment.

BTW, that horse? Global warming. (Hint: flatulence)

Collapse -
Only if I'm pouring gallons of oil ON the horse.....

In reply to: Please post a photo of YOUR horse and carriage. If you are

....and killing him with it. While drunk. Or was Hazelwood an environmental hero to you?

Collapse -
Hazelwood paid with his freedom

In reply to: Only if I'm pouring gallons of oil ON the horse.....

He's no hero, but he's no hardened, ruthless criminal either.

Collapse -
Correction

In reply to: Hazelwood paid with his freedom

Collapse -
I guess your understanding of global warming needs a bit

In reply to: Only if I'm pouring gallons of oil ON the horse.....

of remediation. You might want to read up on greenhouse gases. I'll leave it to you to figure out where some of the hot gas comes from.

Collapse -
Oh I know....

In reply to: I guess your understanding of global warming needs a bit

....where the hot gas is coming from.

Devil

Collapse -
So do I. I'm glad you got the point.

In reply to: Oh I know....

Devil
Collapse -
Oil spills ...

In reply to: I'm just going to take a wild guess....

... are only a small fraction of the oil that seeps into the sea. I'm not going to argue that it is beneficial to the environment, but the only reason it is as destructive as was portrayed is because of human development and industries that were effected. "Nature" recovers remarkably well.

Collapse -
If....

..... tankers were double-hulled, such tragedies, and the economic hits on the people in the areas, could be avoided. Congress gave them 15 years to build new ships. But a an amendment was added to a Homeland Security bill that gave a looophole. I'll be surprised if it ever happens.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
The loophole ...

In reply to: If....

... if you want to call it that, is about WHERE the ships are built. From your link:

U.S. law has required that tankers traveling between U.S. ports be built in the United States. But last fall, U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., slipped a measure into a homeland-security bill that could save some oil carriers millions, allowing them to get waivers to use cheaper, and perhaps older, foreign ships until new tankers are built.

This has no bearing on the 2015 deadline mandating double hulled boats.

Heck, SS insolvency is only a few years out past this deadline and you don't see the obstructionists in the Congress showing much urgency in doing anything to fix it now. I don't see why oil companies should be expected to expedite billions in costs. They've got ten more years to comply, and it would be economic suidice for them to phase out on any accelerated schedule. I don't know of any subsidies to the industry so there is no doubt the conversion will be accompanied by significant price increases pay the bill. The American consumer -- environmentalists included and often among the most vocal -- won't have that!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
I think the point was ...

In reply to: Try as I might...

... that man-made disasters have historically been overblown and the reaction overly punitive.

One member here still boycotts Exxon because of that spill, when doing so acknowledges that this member was a consumer of Exxon prior to the ACCIDENT. It could easily have been any other oil company transporting oil through the region that had an irresponsible employee. We are all using the oil coming through that route and others so to penalize the supplier for the risks inherent in such transport. It was an opportunity for the various environmental organizations to whip up emotional backlash at Exxon when it is doubtful many of them passed up a private jet trip to the area to assess the damage or solicit funding for their organizations at locales far removed. I recall in the old SE someone posted a link to pictures of the area showing a remarkable recovery.

Kyoto is another example of an overly punitive bandaid. The economic cost of the CO2 reductions that could be achieved is vast. The CO2 reductions are a drop in the bucket when all sources are considered.

No, I don't think the fact that nature is powerful and at times ruthless gives us carte blanche to be careless. But I do believe it is counter to human well being to unduly punish those producing what we all want and use.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
do they boycott the other 5

In reply to: I think the point was ...

March 1989: The Exxon Valdez is grounded and spilled 38,800 tons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in worst spill in US history not world it ranks 6th overall

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Maybe that member can answer your question.

In reply to: do they boycott the other 5

Collapse -
I believe I'm the ''mystery boycotter''

In reply to: do they boycott the other 5

And no, I didn't boycott the other 5 and I don't even boycott Exxon anymore; it's just not practical where I live. Most of the gas stations convenient to me are either Exxon or Mobil.

For the record, I wasn't boycotting because there was a spill. I was boycotting because of what I felt was Exxon's reprehensible behavior in the aftermath of that spill. If they'd expended as much time and energy cleaning up the mess as they spent trying to get out of doing it, the area would have recovered a lot more quickly than it has.

Collapse -
I was not trying to call you out..

In reply to: I believe I'm the ''mystery boycotter''

if you boycott the other 5 then i could give a little respect

anyway
like I said I was not trying to call you out..

It is just why the others are not held as accountable?
Example
The U.S. government publicly requested compensation from Mexico for damages associated with the spill without first entering into negotiations with the Mexican Government. Mexico denied being financially responsible for damages incurred, and refused to help pay cleanup expenses to the U.S.\\Officials reported that tourism along the Texas beaches dropped by 60% during the course of the spill.

Thanks to Red Adair and the US tax payers


this was stopped by Red Adair

Collapse -
I know you weren't. No worries.

In reply to: I was not trying to call you out..

I was being called out, but not by you.

All I can tell you is that I saw a company behaving in a way that I found extremely distasteful, and chose to exercise my disapproval by not purchasing their products for a number of years.

Collapse -
Ahh, where's Bob's ...

In reply to: I believe I'm the ''mystery boycotter''

... collectivist attitude about nobody smelting their own Mercedes when we need it? Exxon was but one company providing something we all use and demand a steady supply of. Unless you think they intended for this to happen, this disaster could have been dealt with as other natural disasters in terms of the cleanup. As an alternative, I suppose the oil companies could take out huge oil spill insurance policies in which case the cost is passed on to the consumer. Either way, it really is the consumer that eventually pays for the risks of the energy we consume, and it shouldn't be any other way. If you faced the persecution that Exxon did following this spill, you would probably fight it if for no other reason than to avoid setting a bad precedent.

If it was OK for government to bailout the airlines after 9-11, it would have been more than appropriate for government to "bail out" Exxon from this. I see no difference. Again, unless of course you believe Exxon intended for this to happen. Are the airlines beeing severely fined every time a pilot is caught to have been drinking?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
A story on single-hull ships from 2003

In reply to: I believe I'm the ''mystery boycotter''

Collapse -
Interesting indeed

In reply to: A story on single-hull ships from 2003

Some quotes:

...But halfway through that phase-out period, only seven of nearly two dozen tankers offloading oil here from Alaska's North Slope have dual hulls. Of those, only two are new. ...

...The tanker group that carries oil-giant BP's crude has five new double-hull ships under construction at a cost of $1 billion. The first is expected to be operating next year....


So beginning just a year after the halfway mark, the first of five 200 million dollar double hull ships will be in the water. Too bad one had to wait until so much later in the article to learn how much was in the works.

Given the high costs of converting over, it would be economic suicide for the companies to switch over much sooner. One would think that if the environment was such an overriding concern of the detractors, they would push to have the government subsidize the costs of the newer ships so that they may be put in use faster. However I have no doubt they would decry these "payouts to Big Oil" -- especially if Bush were to do anything to incentivize the industry. I also fully expect the critics to be among the first to whine when energy prices go up to accomodate the costs of building these new ships.

It comes as no surprise to me that the penalized Exxon-Mobil isn't in the forefront replacing its ships. It's hard to come up with the spare billion when one is defending oneself from no end of lawsuits and cleanup costs.

Meanwhile, we all moan and groan when the price of gas and heating oil goes up!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Let us now weep for Exxon

In reply to: Interesting indeed

Isn't there a line on the Statue of Liberty about the poor, downtrodden, huddled oil companies? If there isn't maybe you should start a petition, Evie.

If cash is king, then Exxon Mobil is Midas. The company has amassed $18.5 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Since it generated more than $28 billion in free cash flow last year, investors should expect the cash total to continue climbing in the quarters to come.

Exxon on Thursday did show that it's using some of that cash, saying that it'll boost its share buyback by $1 billion this quarter.


That was two months ago. Current reports are that Exxon has $25 Billion dollars in cash. That's 100 new, safe tankers they could buy right now. Probably more since there's likely a volume discount at that level.

Dan Happy

Collapse -
I don't care if they have 100 billion in cash

In reply to: Let us now weep for Exxon

The reason they do is they are well managed company. Unlike the crappy airlines the taxpayer keeps having to bail out over and over and over ...

The captain of the Valdez paid for his part with his freedom. Unless you believe Exxon hired a drunkard and told him to drink that day I don't beleive they are responsible any more than you or I are for using the fuel in the first place.

Your suggestion that they buy tankers they might not even need by the time they are built demonstrates why you aren't a corporate exec.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.